More PC actions
 

I hope this is not a real event but for some reason I bet there is truth to it.:cool:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

History is what it is...sometimes, the truth sucks.

I see the same thing here in the US with attempts to re-write history and erase portions that are found "distasteful". It is a crime.

I'm happy hong kong is no longer a UK colony. It seems the british just want to lay down and die. They will not stand up for anything or for themselves anymore :sniff:

I do believe they honorably held up to a lease that expired and the Chinese gov was not going to re-new. I would say that is a bit better than many attempts by many countries to colonize places that did not want outsiders. They just did there part in the bargain IMHO.

You misunderstand me. I am happy the british left hong kong not because of a lease but because they are weak now. They will not stand up for themselves anymore so why would I expect them to stand up for hong kong if it were still british?

History is about confrontation, debate, and discussion.

This is bad. Really bad.

I bet they would stand up for themselves, although they would certainly be outmatched against all of China, as would any country today. I think they handled the Iran crisis fairly well.

This is only a standout case because of the reasons given. To choose what to teach because it might offend people of a certain religion is ridiculous. However, the actual action is not unusual; the only example given is a school choosing not to take the option of teaching the Crusades, and choosing not to do GCSE coursework on the Holocaust. There are optional elements to the History curriculum in Britain; unless somethings changed in the last few years, the Crusades are optional; a school can choose to study that or something else. The Holocaust has to be studied, and I'm sure it was at this school, but they just didn't choose to do coursework on it. That's not unusual; I did my GCSE coursework on Northern Ireland. It's not a case of the school ignoring the curriculum, but a case of a school making their choices for the wrong reason. I am almost certain that the Holocaust has to be studied at some point, unless that's changed in the last couple of years.

I'm pretty sure we would have if the people of Hong Kong wanted us to, although I guess it would have depended on the government at the time. We stood up for the Falkland Islanders.

Why wouldn't they talk about the Crusades in front of Muslim students? The Muslims ultimately won over the so-called Christians.

It's a very conservative tabloid so I wouldn't get too worked up by what they publish. My guess is that they are making a mountain out of a molehill.

I would say the same about the LA Times or any of the tripe they report.

Part of Cal Thomas' take on the spinelessness of this example:
What Europe seems to believe is that if they are nice to others, it follows that others will be nice to them.

Cal Thomas:

Everywhere one looks in Europe there are signs that free people are prepared to surrender without a fight to those who would place them in bondage.

In England, a new government-backed study has found that British schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons. Teachers are afraid to teach about the Nazi atrocity because Muslim students might take offense.

The study also discovered resistance by teachers to cover the 11th-century Crusades, when Christians fought Muslims for control of Jerusalem, because the lessons contradict what Muslim students are taught in mosques. The sacrifice of truth in favor of propaganda for fear of violence is the first step on the road to enslavement.

More from Thomas:

All of this is appeasement in the extreme. In post-Christian, and in many cases anti-Christian Europe, (don't look for reprints of the Bible or an accurate newspaper story about the Resurrection of Jesus at Easter), nations that have allowed the immigration of large numbers of Muslims have failed to deal with the radicals among them. The radicals have deliberately refused to be "westernized," or assimilated, and Europe is now trying appeasement in hopes of pacifying people whose goal is not getting along, but obliterating them and their way of life.


All of this — with surely more on the way — comes from the flawed Western point of view that others will be nice to us if we are nice to them. Were this true, the prisons would be empty and there would be no need for burglar alarms and firearms to protect us from criminals. Evil exists and must be defeated, or evil will triumph.

Well, he seems like a well-balanced and reasonable source.

I particularly liked that bit.....does he really think we don't sell bibles in Europe....I take it this man never visited Lourdes...and just why would a newspaper have stories of the resurrection of Jesus, accurate or otherwise? What is he expecting to find, the Calvary fucking Gazette? Gethsemane Times? Newspapers cover news stories, they're not there to retell 2 millennia old religious tales.

Calvary fucking Gazette? Gethsemane Times?

Good one D, I lol'd. :D

Dana has a permanent blind spot.

What? *laughs* wtf you talkin bout?

No popular American newspaper is liberal enough to compare.

Some people call it PC I call it lying to the children that are supposed to become the future. It's building your castle on sand.

Funnily enough, the BBC News: Education site doesn't cover it. I think this is something and nothing.

From the DfEs website, guidance on keystages for history:


This is what most ( I am not sure, but I think tackling this unit might actually be compulsory in order to reach keystage 3) children are learning in order to gain their keystage 3 in History

If anyone is interested in an Italian point of view, google Oriana Fallaci. She was (she died of Ca in sept. 06) an outspoken voice re: the European surrender to radical Islam.

Oh, and Dana? If that is what your country's children are learning in order to get to the next history level--great good fucking luck. Get thee to a nunnery? More likely, "get thee in a burqa"

Tho I do hope it isn't none too hot.

Fallaci:

During her journalistic career she became known for challenging interviews with such world leaders as former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Her work _ both interviews and books _ was translated across the world.

"Fallaci's manner of interviewing was deliberately unsettling: she approached each encounter with studied aggressiveness, made frequent nods to European existentialism (she often disarmed her subjects with bald questions about death, God, and pity), and displayed a sinuous, crafty intelligence," The New Yorker wrote in a profile this year entitled "The Agitator."

Fallaci's recent publications _ including the best-selling book "The Rage and The Pride," which came out weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks _ drew accusations of racism and inciting hatred against Muslims.

"The Rage and The Pride," sold more than 1 million copies in Italy and found a large audience elsewhere in Europe. But Fallaci was also accused of racism.

In the book, she wrote that Muslims "multiply like rats" and said "the children of Allah spend their time with their bottoms in the air, praying five times a day."

A group in France unsuccessfully sought to stop distribution of the book, while two other associations have requested that it carry a warning notice.

Her next essay, "The Strength of Reason," accused Europe of having sold its soul to what Fallaci described as an Islamic invasion. It also took the Catholic Church to task for being what she considers too weak before the Muslim world.

Describing Europe as "Eurabia," Fallaci said the continent "has sold itself and sells itself to the enemy like a prostitute."

"Europe becomes more and more a province of Islam, a colony of Islam," she wrote.

The current invasion, Fallaci went on to say, is not carried out only by the "terrorists who blow up themselves along with skyscrapers or buses" but also by "the immigrants who settle in our home, and who, with no respect for our laws, impose their ideas, their customs, their God."

She was not married and had no children. Information on funeral arrangements was not immediately available.



Print This ArticleE-Mail This Article
RSS Feed
© 2006 The Associated

Do you just spend you whole time trawling for nasty, anti-moslem tracts?

Since we're quoting the bard, I think a more appropriate one for you would be "Come to my woman's breasts,
And take my milk for gall", except someone's already done that. You're spilling over with venom chickyboo.

I agree.

Ah, the hand that points the finger has three more fingersd pointing back at it. check out your last 4-5 posts. Everyone sees your special hatred, your supposed moral superiority. What a joke. You, dana, think the masses NEED YOU to stop discrimination; that they are too dumb to do it themselves, right? I purpose that NO MINORITY needs Dana; that they can and WILL find their power and voice despite a white girls meddling.


PS--i;m a student with free time (every once and a while) and you are, we are supposed to believe, employed? by the gov't? Do you fritter away gov't money responding to the cellar? One wonders.

She sounds interesting. I'll have to see what's around to be read.

I am a full-time university student, who works as a local Councillor in my spare time. It's a voluntary position, I was elected to do it. It's unwaged, it does however pay an allowance to cover expenses incurred.

I think you expend way too much energy on your hatred of me Bri. Go chill out it'll do you good.

Darling, I don't. It is YOU who are obsessed with me. For that I only pity you.


Dana--look deep inside yourself and come to your own conclusion. I only wish Peace for you. Good Luck.

You started the attacks in this thread. But yeah, K. whatever.

K. ! *happy*

Now.

Why'd your sailor's look like imbiciles? coz, honey, they did.

actually, duckies, they looked like cheese surrendering monkeys.

i don;'t think Nelson or even Churchill would be cool with that--but, y;know, WhaTEver!

Wow. That's incredible. I think you actually disappeared up your own arse. Well done Bri, quite an achievement.

Incidentally. It's worth pointing out that I can't find anything relating to this report on either the DfES site, or the BBC News: Education page. I suspect it's a load of bollocks.

[edit] I have now managed to track down the report, via the TES site. It's called Teaching Emotive and Controversial History: 3-19. It's basically a paper written by the Historical Association, which looks at teaching styles, possible constraints, possible solutions, issues around resources, issues around teacher training, good practice and bad practice etc. Its a 48 page report and on page 15, it cites a single, unnamed school as an example of some of the difficulties teachers might have teaching emotive and controversial history. Essentially it is listing that as its example of bad practice and then explores potential reasons why a teacher might have decided to avoid controversy. It in no way indicates a trend.

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data...iles/RW100.pdf